Live data from Hacker News

Iroh 1.0

iroh.computer

51–60 of 488 posts

Re: Iroh 1.0

#51

I'm out of my technical depth here, but out of curiosity: is this meant to be a full replacement for the current IP address paradigm, or is this meant to be a specific tool on top of/alongside IP addresses that solves particular problems/frictions?

A little bit of both. Natively it relies on QUIC and leverages existing IP infrastructure, however it also works with custom transports just as fine so you can interact via bluetooth for example.

Re: Iroh 1.0

#52
post #46

I don't understand the problem its trying to solve in the first place, IP works just fine, such as DNS. There is already IPv6 and quic, you need vendor and major software to have any traction in that field.

[dead]

Re: Iroh 1.0

#53
post #46

I don't understand the problem its trying to solve in the first place, IP works just fine, such as DNS. There is already IPv6 and quic, you need vendor and major software to have any traction in that field.

I'm not affiliated with Iroh or even using it, but... "IP works just fine". What!? This is _not_ a solved problem

Re: Iroh 1.0

#55
post #16

I am one of the iroh developers. A question that frequently comes up: when will iroh support webrtc, or BLE, or LoRa, or ... Iroh as of now supports only IPv4, IPv6 and relay transports out of the box. There is such a large variety of potentially interesting transports out there that we can't support all of them without turning the codebase into an unmaintainable maze of feature flags. But we have added the ability t…

FWIW I think for “new user” audiences you’re better off describing why we’d use this instead of IP, than why you haven’t gotten it everywhere yet: there’s a certain sort of “complaint I see the most from current users” myopia that sets in, at least for me, over the years. :)

Re: Iroh 1.0

#57

To me this sounds like tailscale - does anyone have any insight into how what this is doing is similar or different?

Their use of addressing by keys instead of by IPs seems to be the main differentiator. Also the support for custom transports (BLE, LoRa, Tor) which appears to be in progress and not yet fully implemented.

I love Tailscale, it's deployed on all my devices. But I might check this out for the transports part in particular.

Re: Iroh 1.0

#58

To me this sounds like tailscale - does anyone have any insight into how what this is doing is similar or different?

My 5 second summary: Tailscale connects devices and Iroh connects applications.

Re: Iroh 1.0

#59

LM studio recently released a mobile app powered by Tailscale -- https://lmstudio.ai/link . Iroh seems like a perfect OSS alternative for implementing similar p2p features.

Tailscale is OSS AFAIK. Not their backend of course, but if you use Headscale then I believe every part is OSS.

Re: Iroh 1.0

#60
post #47
post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are the risks if any of running public relays? Is this similar in concept to running Tor Guard Nodes / Relays?

If you run a public unauthenticated relay you act as a home relay for whoever has your relay configured in their relay map and is close in terms of latency. So you might get a lot of traffic. You can configure rate limiting, as we do on our public relays. The traffic is fully encrypted and can not be decrypted by the relay. The only information the relay has is what is necessary for it to function - the endpoint id a…

So if you want to compare it with Tor, it would be like a tor guard/middle relay, not an exit node.

Nice. I already do rate limiting, traffic balancing using sch cake. This looks like an interesting project. I could envision open source NVR's implementing this. I also like the name of the project.

Post reply on HN